July 13, 2000 Proposal to Reclassify/Delist the Gray Wolf
in the Lower 48 States

Questions and Answers About the
2000 Proposal to Reclassify/Delist the Gray Wolf

1)
What is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposing to do?The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to change
the classification of the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act (Act).
Increases in gray wolf numbers, expansion of the species' occupied range,
and progress toward achieving the reclassification and delisting criteria
of several approved gray wolf recovery plans show that the species' current
classification is no longer appropriate throughout most of its range.

Because
wolves or sufficient wolf habitat occur in four distinct areas of the
conterminous states, the Service is proposing to establish four distinct
population segments (DPSs) for the gray wolf in the United States and
Mexico. Gray wolves in three of the distinct populations (the Western
Great Lakes, the Western, and the Northeastern) will be reclassified from
endangered to threatened, except where already classified as an experimental
population or as threatened. Gray wolves in the Southwestern Distinct
Population will retain their endangered status. All three existing gray
wolf experimental population designations will be retained. In all other
areas in the Lower 48 States, gray wolves will be removed from the protections
of the Endangered Species Act. The Service is also proposing to establish
three new special section 4(d) rules for wolves in the Northeastern, Western
Great Lakes and a portion of the Western distinct populations.

2)
What is a Distinct Population Segment?In addition to the listing and delisting of species and subspecies,
the Act allows the listing/delisting of distinct population segments of
vertebrate species (that is, animals with backbones: mammals, birds, fish,
reptiles, and amphibians). A distinct population segment is a portion
of a species' or subspecies' population or range. The distinct population
segment is generally described geographically instead of biologically,
such as "all members of XYZ species that occur north of 40E north
latitude."

The
Service's proposal to reclassify/delist the gray wolf recommends establishing
four gray wolf distinct population segments in the Lower 48 States. The Western Great Lakes Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment includes
gray wolves in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
The Northeastern Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment includes
wolves that may occur in New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Maine.
The Western Gray Wolf Distinct Population Segment includes wolves
in the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado,
northern Arizona, and northern New Mexico. The Southwestern Gray
Wolf Distinct Population Segment includes gray wolves in southern
Arizona, southern New Mexico, west Texas, and Mexico.

The
use of distinct population segments has advantages for the protection
and conservation of gray wolves because the Service can customize application
of the Act across the species' range. We are proposing to reclassify (from
endangered to threatened) the distinct population segments of gray wolves
that have improving populations or where needed to facilitate restoration
efforts, while retaining "endangered" status for the Southwest
distinct population. By doing this we remove or reduce the Act's protections
from part of the wolf's range where it is justified while keeping full
Endangered Species Act protection for the Southwest Distinct Population
Segment which has not yet experienced recovery.

The
Service's policy for designating distinct population segments is sometimes
called the Vertebrate Population Policy. This policy contains the criteria
that must be met for a portion of a species' population to be designated
as a distinct population segment. Those criteria include the requirements
that a distinct population segment must be discrete and significant. This
policy was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 4722-4725; February
7, 1996) and can be found on the Web at: http://www.fws.gov/r9endspp/pol005.html.

3) What is a 4(d) Rule?Section 4(d) of the Act allows the Service to establish special regulations
for threatened (not endangered) species, subspecies, and Distinct
Population Segments. The Act specifies that 4(d) rules must be "necessary
and advisable to provide for the conservation of such species."

One
use of 4(d) rules is to relax the normal Endangered Species Act restrictions
to reduce conflicts between people and the protections provided to threatened
species. A 4(d) rule can be used in such a situation if those conflicts
would adversely affect recoveryand if the reduced protection
will not slow species' recovery. This type of 4(d) rule already is in
effect for gray wolves in Minnesota. Under authority of a 4(d) rule, Minnesota
wolves that have preyed on domestic animals can be trapped and killed
by designated government agents. (For more details on this example of
a section 4(d) special rule refer to Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations
17.40(d).)

The
Service is proposing three new special rules under section 4(d) for the
Northeastern, Western Great Lakes, and Western gray wolf distinct populations.
The intent of these special rules is to minimize conflicts between wolves
and humans and thus improve the chances for gray wolf recovery.

4)
What is an Experimental Population?Re-establishing a threatened or endangered species in areas of its
former range is often necessary for recovery. However, residents and businesses
frequently oppose such reintroductions because they fear the presence
of the species will also bring severe restrictions on the use of private
and public land in the area. To overcome this serious obstacle to species
reintroductions, Congress added the concept of experimental populations
to the Act. Experimental population designations are sometimes referred
to as section 10(j) rules.

An
experimental population is a geographically described group of reintroduced
plants or animals that is isolated from other existing populations of
the species. Members of the experimental population are considered to
be threatened under the Act, and thus, can have special regulations
written for them under section 4(d). In addition, if the experimental
population is determined to be "nonessential" to the survival
of the species, for some activities the experimental population is treated
like a species that is proposed for listing as threatened or endangered.
In other words, the nonessential experimental population is not given
the full protections of the Endangered Species Act.

Three
non-essential, experimental populations of wolves currently exist: (1)
the Yellowstone Management Area (in Wyoming and portions of Idaho and
Montana), (2) the Central Idaho Area (in portions of Idaho and Montana)
and, (3) the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area (in Arizona, New
Mexico, and Texas). The Service does not propose to change the status
of any of these experimental populations.

5)
What changes are proposed for wolves in the Western Great Lakes Distinct
Population Segment?This distinct population includes gray wolves in North Dakota, South
Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Gray wolves throughout this
region are currently listed as endangered, except for those in Minnesota
which are listed as threatened, a less critical designation. In these
states, gray wolves which are currently listed as endangered would be
reclassified to threatened. The development of a section 4(d)special
rule would allow for increased management flexibility of wolves in North
Dakota, South Dakota, Michigan, and Wisconsin. This special rule would
allow designated Federal, State, and Tribal agents to kill wolves that
have preyed on domestic animals. Wolves in Minnesota would retain their
current status of threatened, and the existing 4(d) rule would remain
in effect.

6)
What changes are proposed for wolves in the Western Distinct Population
Segment?

This
distinct population includes wolves in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah,
Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, northern Arizona, and northern New Mexico.
The Service's proposal would give naturally occurring gray wolves in this
region, including those in northwestern Montana and wolves thought to
inhabit the state of Washington, the designation of threatened. A section
4(d) special rule would also increase management flexibility in dealing
with wolf-human conflicts. Wolves reintroduced in Yellowstone National
Park and central Idaho would retain their current nonessential, experimental
population status, and would remain subject to the existing, somewhat
less flexible, special rules for those wolves.

7)
Why is the Service delisting wolves in states where there are no wolves?

The
Service is proposing to delist wolves in several states in the eastern
U.S. and California and Nevada. Although much of this area is part of
historical wolf range, loss of suitable wolf habitat and potential conflicts
with people make it highly unlikely that wolf recovery in those areas
would be successful. The Service believes that restoration of gray wolf
populations in other areas will sufficiently recover the gray wolf to
the point that the species will no longer qualify as either a threatened
or endangered species within the definitions of the Act.

8)
Why is the Service reclassifying and not delisting the wolf in Minnesota,
Wisconsin and Michigan even though the recovery criteria have been met?

With
wolf populations of about 250 and 216 in Wisconsin and Michigan (excluding
Isle Royale), respectively, it is clear that those states have both surpassed
the numerical reclassification criterion contained in the 1992 Recovery
Plan of 80 wolves for three years. They have also surpassed the numerical
delisting criterion of 100 wolves for five consecutive winters. In addition,
the estimated 2,500 wolves in Minnesota surpass the 1,251 to 1,400 wolves
envisioned by the Service's recovery plan for a fully recovered Minnesota
wolf population. Unfortunately, due to the lack of a State wolf management
plan, at this time there is no clear direction for future wolf management
and protection in Minnesota. With no assurance of future management for
a viable wolf population in Minnesota, the Service decided not to propose
to delist gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment.

Instead
of delisting, we are proposing to reclassify to "threatened"
status all "endangered" wolves within the Western Great Lakes Distinct
Population Segment. Reclassification recognizes the improved status of
this distinct population of wolves, provides us with the opportunity to
allow lethal control of depredating wolves with a 4(d) special rule, and
yet retains Federal protection until delisting is appropriate. If, in
the future, we are better able to analyze future threats to gray wolves
in Minnesota, and we are able to demonstrate that their future survival
is assured, then we can initiate a separate proposal to delist gray wolves
in the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment.

Gray
wolves that sometimes appear in North and South Dakota are included in
the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment, because they are
believed to be part of the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan gray wolf population
and are isolated from the Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming gray wolf populations.

9)
Why is the Service proposing to reclassify wolves in the Northeast to
threatened if there is no conclusive evidence that there are any wolves
there?The existence of large areas of potentially suitable wolf habitat
and prey resources in northern New York and New England, the possibility
that wild wolves may exist in remote areas of Maine, and the presence
of wolf populations in neighboring areas of eastern Canada indicate a
potential for wolf recovery in this area. Therefore, the Service has proposed
to reclassify gray wolves in the Northeastern Distinct Population Segment
from endangered to threatened to maintain Federal protection while allowing
the development of a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act.

The
proposed 4(d) special rule is intended to promote the restoration and
recovery of wolves to one or more states within the Northeastern Distinct
Population Segment by providing interested states and tribes with the
authority to assume the lead role in carrying out protection, management,
and recovery actions for the species. This flexibility will make it easier
for states and tribes to control and remove problem wolves and will reduce
opposition to wolf restoration in areas where they have been absent for
many decades. Because human-caused wolf mortality is the main threat to
wolf populations worldwide, reducing this threat should increase the likelihood
of wolf recovery in the Northeast.

10)
How will this proposal affect the Mexican gray wolf?Recovery of the Southwestern (Mexican) gray wolf distinct population
is in its very early stages, so the Service is not proposing to change
its "endangered" status. Wolves within the existing non-essential
experimental population area would retain that designation.

11)
Will the red wolf be affected by this proposal?The red wolf, found in the southeastern United States, is a different
species from the gray wolf and would not be affected by this proposal.

12)
Will the wolves in Alaska be affected by this proposal?Wolves in Alaska were never listed under the Endangered Species Act
and, therefore, will not be affected by this proposal.

13)
When will a final decision on the proposal be made?A final decision will be made no later than one year following the
publication of the proposed rule.

14)
How can I comment on the proposal?The Service is actively seeking information from the public on its
proposal to delist and reclassify gray wolves. Specifically, the Service
is interested in information on: future threats to wolf populations in
the Lower 48 States and Mexico; the use of special rules to manage gray
wolf populations; wolf monitoring methods; and other factors the Service
should consider prior to making its final decision.

Comments
from interested parties will be considered by the Service if received
by November 13, 2000.

15)
How do I get more information?Informal information meetings are planned across the country to provide
details and answer questions on the Service's proposal. In addition, formal
public hearings will also be held to receive verbal comments; additional
hearings may be requested (deadline for receiving requests is August 28,
2000). The locations, dates, and times of informational meetings and hearings
can be obtained by visiting the Service's Web site or by contacting us
by phone or email as described below.

The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service posts information about gray wolf populations
on the Internet at http://midwest.fws.gov/wolf.
Individuals or groups wishing to be placed on the Service's mailing list
to obtain updates on the wolf's status can write: